Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Soriano Vs

    Uploaded by

    Raymart Salamida
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not personally liable in a case regarding an agreement embodied in a receipt between the petitioners and the private respondent. The petitioners argued that any liability should be as officers of the corporation Bacarra (I.N.) FaCoMa, Inc. and not in their personal capacity. The Court held that the liability was corporate in nature and not personal, as there was no evidence that the corporation was used for fraudulent, unfair or illegal purposes. Furthermore, obligations are presumed to be joint and not solidary under the law unless clearly indicated otherwise in the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Soriano Vs

    Uploaded by

    Raymart Salamida
    67 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not personally liable in a case regarding an agreement embodied in a receipt between the petitioners and the private respondent. The petitioners argued that any liability should be as officers of the corporation Bacarra (I.N.) FaCoMa, Inc. and not in their personal capacity. The Court held that the liability was corporate in nature and not personal, as there was no evidence that the corporation was used for fraudulent, unfair or illegal purposes. Furthermore, obligations are presumed to be joint and not solidary under the law unless clearly indicated otherwise in the agreement.

    Original Description:

    Corporation Case Digest

    Original Title

    40. Soriano vs

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not personally liable in a case regarding an agreement embodied in a receipt between the petitioners and the private respondent. The petitioners argued that any liability should be as officers of the corporation Bacarra (I.N.) FaCoMa, Inc. and not in their personal capacity. The Court held that the liability was corporate in nature and not personal, as there was no evidence that the corporation was used for fraudulent, unfair or illegal purposes. Furthermore, obligations are presumed to be joint and not solidary under the law unless clearly indicated otherwise in the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views2 pages

    Soriano Vs

    Uploaded by

    Raymart Salamida
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not personally liable in a case regarding an agreement embodied in a receipt between the petitioners and the private respondent. The petitioners argued that any liability should be as officers of the corporation Bacarra (I.N.) FaCoMa, Inc. and not in their personal capacity. The Court held that the liability was corporate in nature and not personal, as there was no evidence that the corporation was used for fraudulent, unfair or illegal purposes. Furthermore, obligations are presumed to be joint and not solidary under the law unless clearly indicated otherwise in the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Soriano vs.

    CA (174 SCRA 195)

    SECOND DIVISION
    G.R. No. L-49834 June 22, 1989
    PAULINO SORIANO, NENITA C. ESPERANZA and JANDRO G. MACADANGDANG,
    petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Former Sixth Division) and
    GERVACIO CU, respondents.

    Decision. SARMIENTO, J.:

    DOCTRINE: It is the general rule that the protective mantle of a corporation's


    separate and distinct personality could only be pierced and liability attached
    directly to its officers and/or members-stockholders, when the same is used for
    fraudulent, unfair or illegal purpose.

    FACTS: The central issue in this case is whether the respondent appellate court erred
    in affirming in toto the decision dated July 12, 1971 of the trial court in Civil Case No.
    4463 which held the petitioners, defendants therein, solidarily liable in their personal
    capacity to the private respondent under an agreement between them embodied in a
    receipt.

    It is the petitioners' contention that they should not be made accountable for the
    controversial contract in their personal capacity but, if ever, as officers of Bacarra (I.N.)
    FaCoMa, Inc., they having entered into the "deal" with the private respondent as such.

    The petitioners argue that even if their liability proves to be personal in character, still
    the same should only be joint and not solidary as erroneously ruled by the two lower
    courts

    ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are liable.

    HELD: NO. it is clear that the liability of the petitioners under the document subject of
    the instant case, is not personal but corporate. It is the general rule that the protective
    mantle of a corporation's separate and distinct personality could only be pierced and
    liability attached directly to its officers and/or members-stockholders, when the same is
    used for fraudulent, unfair or illegal purpose.

    In the case at bar, there is no showing that the Association entered into the transaction
    with the private respondent for the purpose of defrauding the latter of his goods or the
    payment thereof. More importantly, there is no proof whatsoever that the majority of the
    directors used the distinct and separate personality of Bacarra (I.N.) FaCoMa, Inc. as a
    protective shield for any wrongdoing.

    Suffice it to state that under the law and well-established jurisprudence, an obligation is
    presumed joint and not solidary. There is nothing in the receipt, constituting the
    agreement of the parties, which would sufficiently indicate that the petitioners bound
    themselves solidarily, if they bound themselves personally at all.

    You might also like